Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
A developer of this app has marked a post as the answer to the topic above.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Pretty much, it sounds arrogant but its entirely possible. To assume the game only has bad reviews because of an asci bug that probably didn't even affect 5% of the playerbase is a bad answer.
Literally my first answer and post on this entire game. You need to stop being a fanboy and just accept that some consumers reply to other consumers so they can make informed decisions.
This either means you haven't played long enough or you are simply a casual player who doesn't understand or doesn't care - which is fine. But a lot of players are looking for something deeper and neither the balancing nor the AI offer this. This is not a bad answer but a factual statement. You may feel like that the game is entertaining to you, but factually it can still be a complete mess (which it is). And it's fine if you still enjoy it. Afterall the game still has mixed reviews and not (yet) negative.
Your general sentiment is correct. Opinions can often be contrary to fact. I can enjoy a game even if it’s objectively broken. There’s a whole category of games - kusoge - in Japan that are said to be “so bad they’re good”. They’re fundamentally broken, but in ways that certain gamers find really entertaining to play.
But then you discredit your position by stating a biased position as unbiased fact. The game is not by any means “a complete mess”. A complete mess was Cities Skylines 2. A complete mess was Cyberpunk 2077 at launch. This is a legitimately solid foundation with polish, feature completion, and less substantial bugs than your average modern game has at initial launch.
It’s unbalanced for your style of play (and I think that’s by intention, but that’s another discussion), so it’s broken for what gamers like you want to use it for. But a BLT isn’t a failure because I wanted Canadian bacon. A BLT is a failure only if it lacks bacon. So for you to speak in such objective terms on a matter of opinion is, I think, quite the disservice to the very reasonable premise you started with.
Side note: Your “yet” at the end is also disingenuous. It was sitting around 62% when I first looked a few days ago, and now it’s 68% positive. The trend is upward, not downward.
As for the bad reviews, a large number of them are from people who had technical issues (and didn't wait for the same-day hotfix), or have only a couple of hours in the game. They didn't stay long enough to have an informed opinion, much like yourself. Weeding those out, the reviews fall pretty much into two camps - those who think the game is a great start and could develop into something great, and those who are unhappy because they see it's current state as a failure and are not interested in its future.
If you're not interested in the future of this game, all I'm asking is that you not hang around here to insult those of us who are.
Your comment was that the game has no merit, and it only takes 20 hours to determine this. You are entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to point out that I completely disagree that you have formed anything like a well-considered view. It seems strange to determine that a game is a complete waste of time, as you said you had, and then feel the need to jump on the message boards and spend more time talking about that game.
Not directly related, but possibly relevant, you have 30ish hours or less in the majority of your Steam games. Is this because you routinely dismiss games before you spend much time with them?
So, looking at your Steam library, we own a lot of the same games. I have significantly more hours in all of them than you do. Perhaps you are a casual? Would you know if you were? I also have far more than 20 hours in ARA at this point. So again, are you sure you're quite as qualified to make these judgments as you think you are?
It's not that you shouldn't have your opinions. It's your tone. That anyone who likes this game is a deficient that doesn't understand the world. You may need to look in the mirror.
You say you're looking for something "deeper." This game is already deeper than any other Civ-like 4x out there. There are more choices to make at more points in the game than any of its competitors. I'll freely admit that the AI is not great at playing the game, but neither are any other 4x games. I am currently hoping that this one will improve over time. Even if it doesn't, this is still a lot more interesting than Civ VI or Humankind.
As for the game being a mess, that's a bad answer. For starters, the game is beautiful. That's not enough by itself, but it still matters. This is the best looking game in the genre and it's not even close. Aside from that, the crafting system is an interesting new direction to take these games, and it offers a lot of opportunities for strategic depth, as well as making the acquisition of resources feel far more entertaining and rewarding than any similar games do. For all the "controversy" around the culling mechanic, it's a novel approach to try to solve the mid-late game doldrums that are an unfortunate staple of the genre. With player feedback, I think it could become something really cool and satisfying.
The UI is inefficient in some ways, particularly around craft management. The tooltips are often insufficient. There are issues with balance in some of the buildings and leaders. The military doesn't allow for upgrades or reorganization. Paragons are a little wonky. All these things are true. What is also true is that much of this will be addressed with the first patch. It's mostly cleanup and polish. I expect future DLCs which add depth to combat, religion, and diplomacy, just like Civ VI had. At that point, this will almost assuredly be best in class.
Whatever, I'm writing a whole review for you, but you've already made up your mind. This isn't cerebral enough stuff for the likes of you. Fine. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Let me start over. I'm frustrated with all the whining and poorly reasoned hot takes people are leveraging against ARA. There is a simple reason for this.
I've been playing these games as long as they've existed, almost 40 years. I've put lots of time over the years into thinking about how I would improve the genre, or what I would try to do if I were designing my own game. ARA isn't exactly what I would make, but what I know - I KNOW - is that this has the potential to be the very best game of it's type made up to now.
The base is there. The systems are all in place, the map is excellent and nice to look at. There is a solid mix of tried and true staples of the genre and new or fresh elements. But it's not done yet.
It's going to take lots of patches and DLCs, and hopefully a thriving mod community, to get it to the finish line. It may take time, years probably. But that's ok. Stellaris took years and all of those things combined to get where it is now, and it's far and away the top of the heap in 4x space games.
ARA has that potential, unless it is killed in its crib by clueless reviews from whiny people who don't even take the time to figure out how the game works. Which is what most of the reviews are. There are legitimate criticisms to be made, but they should be leveled at the devs with the expectation that they are going to listen and work on it. If they don't, well, there's nothing anybody can do about that. But to turn people off to this unpolished diamond and not even try to help get it to its potential is just plain crappy behavior. Making good things isn't easy. Making great things is rare indeed. Let's give them time and our feedback, and maybe we can all share in a great thing.
When we talk about negative reviews, the bulk really are from the day 1 language issue. That doesn't mean that if you take that away the game suddenly is 95% positive. Bu it would be around 80%.
Now, that said, there are legitimate areas for improvement. UI updates for less micromanagement, unit upgrading, AI updates, etc.
The good news is that we aren't going anywhere. We're working on a regular cadence of free updates. We don't even have any non-free updates planned for this year (well except the soundtrack probably).
Hopefully people can agree on two things:
1. This isn't a "clone" of other games in the genre. It is honestly trying to approach the historical 4X strategy game concept in a new way.
2. We have a pretty solid foundation to start from.
I believe the "bad answers" referred to are generally those that speak for others and/or dismiss other opinions. So, in actuality, they are exactly what you are complaining about here.
What? He is responding to the thread "why negative reviews?" If you don't want to see answers, maybe don't read the thread.
Now you yourself are doing what you just complained about.
Game is woke
Tell me, from this Encarta, how many Arenas can you build? How does combat work, exactly (what is "countered")? How is timber production calculated? How are simultaneous turns resolved (what makes a force "faster" when "most forces move 1 region per turn"?) How does the game determine if you earned a paragon? Or goals? How does security affect my forces (say I have one high and one low security city)? Why is "established relations" discussed under "traits" and not "diplomacy?" Why can I not type in a key word like this into search?
Game is unable to sleep, how can it wake?
And there you have it. The reality is that game reviews are generally reflective of what a game is -- not what it could be in two years. Most people are looking for a game to play, not a stock to invest in. Given enough time, Humankind could be the best... ah who am I kidding?
The answer is that this game has problems. You might not like that, but it is what it is.
I like a lot about ARA. It might get there. Or it might not. That is up to the developers, not the reviewers.
Tutorial would tell you a lot of this, though not all. But let’s see… I’ll put what I typed in quotes, then the topic it led me to, then the answer it gave.
“Arena” - Arena (Improvements) - Admittedly it doesn’t say, but it doesn’t really need to because the build menu shows you a big old icon that says 0/1 next to the arena. If you hover over it, it’ll tell you that’s per city.
“Combat” - Combat (How To Play) - each turn of combat, each force has a single combat value pitted against the opponent’s that determines how much damage it suffers. This value is impacted by a variety of inputs, including Strength, Formation Bonuses, Buffs, Damage Type, and Terrain Type. Damage is dealt simultaneously.
Doesn’t say anything about counters, but in the Units section it tells you that’s known as “damage type”, and that some damage types get advantages over others. Admittedly this might’ve been more common sense to me, coming from Paradox games, but anytime you see x0.#, it’s giving you a percentage. Based on how many spears you have and how many cavalry they have, their cavalry will be reduced as much as x0.5 (dealing 50% of their normal damage).
Why isn’t this covered in detail? Probably because it’s too complex a calculation to detail. But I’ll grant that they could at least have a section on Damage Type to tell you what beats what more clearly. But I mean, “Anti-Cavalry” is pretty straightforward at least. In your battle recap menu, you can see how much of your army’s damage output comes from each damage type and what their modifiers are.
“Prod” - Production (Game Concept) - Harvest Production is the bonus Production applied to improvements that harvest from resource nodes. If you click on your logging camp, you’ll see how much production it has, and you can see the required production to harvest 1 Timber by hovering over the output number. I have 338 production per turn - I can hover over that number right in the tooltip to see the breakdown of where it all comes from. Timber requires 25. Thus, I produce 13.5 timber per turn. I have sufficient production to produce 1 Timber 13 times over.
In other words, most of what’s not in there isn’t in there because it’s in the tooltips for the thing you’re trying to divine.
“Turn” - The Turn (How To Play) - After all orders are submitted, the computer determines which force is faster. If my (retreating) force is fastest, it gets out safely. If not, they enter the region before I escape, prompting a battle. This is probably not as simple as the Speed value; thus, it’s probably a complex calculation based on your army composition and condition, and is therefore too complex to detail.
“Parag” - Paragon (How To Play) - Paragons are earned as your Nation’s population expands. In other words, RNG based on how big your population has gotten since the last paragon.
“Goal” - Goals (How To Play) - Once you have a goal, you can find it in the aptly named Goals panel. To do so at any time, select the Goals Icon (!; that’s literally the icon, that’s not me being a smartass) in the upper right-hand portion of the HUD.
“Qual” - Quality of Life (Game Concepts) - Security boosts the Strength of forces raised in the city. Granted that last bit isn’t in the Encarta, it was in the tutorial. So that could stand to be added here. It affects only the forces raised in that city. So if you have a high Security city, aim to raise your forces there.
“rela” - Relationship Status (Game Concepts) - It’s covered here too, in good detail. In fact I learned something by reading this entry, so thanks for sending me here.
I do agree that being able to search keywords within a topic would be nice though.
So, I have to research it first, in order to discover I can build ONE? That is complete documentation?
So the complete documentation is based on your "common sense" that gives you a vague notion of what is happening?
So, this very important thing isn't in the most complete documentation? BTW, the tooltip doesn't describe what is going on well, either. Does it say you need 25 production? Does it say how "base value" is derived?
In fact, production seems so poorly documented, that even game developers don't seem to know how it works. Or maybe they don't know how to make modifiers relevant. Not sure.
Darn. Just too complex for the most thorough documentation to give you any idea.
I like how you guess and pretend it is in the doc.
No, the point is, why do I have the goal in the first place?
So it isn't in there. Even your description doesn't tell me what happens if my security changes after raising the troops.
This is probably the only one on my list that I will give a passing grade. Definitely not an 'A' though.
1. … Yes, but with respect, why would you need to know how many a city can have if you can’t yet build one? If you want an arena, you get the tech that gives you an arena. If you don’t want one enough to research that tech, it doesn’t really matter how many you can build.
2. No, the documentation is based on what it’s feasible to put into documentation. My common sense assessment is just a boon of my past gaming tastes. As I said, it could stand to at least have an attack type triangle.
3. Yes to first, no to second. Hover over the number next to the wood you’re producing and it tells you “Production Required 25”. Base Value is literally just the basic production value of the building so there are no details to provide. Every logging camp has the same base value.
4. I said it was the most thorough. That doesn’t meant it gives you every under the hood calculation. No other documentation I’m aware of does this either. It does give me an idea, by it it’d just be my educated guess. Based on what it says, my idea is that it relates to the terrain you’re moving off of, whether it has a road, and the composition of your force (more siege engines means a slower force, more horses means a faster force, etc.)
But if you’re asking for a detailed listing of every coefficient and algebraic equation used to determine this, that’s not the purview of documentation, that’s the purview of a fan wiki. Even Victoria doesn’t list such things in their documentation.
5. Well I know it’s chance based because there are leader traits that affect that chance. The documentation says it can happen as your population grows, I don’t know what else it needs to say. You get paragons as your population grows. If you want paragons, grow your population. Pretty straightforward.
6. Ah, I misunderstood. That’s in there too, “From time-to-time various Events will occur thst give your nation Goals to achieve for various rewards, including Prestige. You can get Goals from a bunch of sources, including Tribes, foreign Nations, and the Deus ex Machina of the game itself.”
So basically if you have a Goal, it came from an Event triggered by one of various sources. Check your event text when these fire and you’ll have an idea of where your Goals are coming from.
7. That’s something you test by doing. I’ve tested it and it does have an effect. Forces are tied to the city they muster in, and changes to that city’s Security alter the force’s Strength in real time.
As for it not being there, this is a case of the tooltip already having it. What’s preferable: Having the information right there when you’re looking at the thing, or having to open something and search for it? I fail to see why you’re mad at the game for not documenting something 3-4 clicks away when it’s already documented zero clicks away.
8. Fair enough.
1. Ok, in most games executing a master stroke is only found in winning battles and the economy is just balancing different weights. Here winning means unlocking new goods or resources. Civ has it’s luxuries but unlocking them never felt as impactful as goods do in Ara.
2. Not really, because the goods only feel that impactful because the player is forced to micro the economy all the time. If the player is just a manager visiting the workshop now and than to listen what they need to work faster, it might no longer feel like natural goals emerging from the game mechanic, but instead some arbitrary hoops to jump through. Shove the player’s face into the minutiae of production and the player get’s bored, but if you don’t do it, getting goods (by making them or trading them) could lose it’s “gravitas”. Don’t know if there even is a sweet spot.
3. People tend not to cut moralistic firebrands some slack. You probably shouldn’t have gotten on your high horse, preaching your superior morality, if you now want people to just believe in you. You know what I mean.